People v. Russell
E064121
| Cal. Ct. App. | Mar 17, 2017Background
- Defendant Lamonte Russell and two codefendants attacked partygoers; victim David suffered severe head injuries after being struck with a bat. Russell was convicted of aggravated mayhem, torture, and assault with a deadly weapon, acquitted of attempted murder, and sentenced to 7 years to life.
- Russell gave a videotaped police statement at the station before being Mirandized; police had detained and handcuffed him in the field but removed handcuffs before station transport and repeatedly told him he was not under arrest.
- At verdict polling one juror (Juror No. 11, "TJ11") initially answered "no" when asked if the announced verdicts were her own, then clarified she meant "yes" after the court’s follow-up; the court accepted the verdicts as unanimous.
- After trial defense counsel reported a hallway conversation with TJ11 alleging deliberation misconduct (misunderstanding unanimity and alleged juror-supplied internet/Biblical material). The court attempted to contact TJ11 multiple times; she did not respond.
- The trial court denied (1) suppression of Russell’s pre-Miranda statements, finding the interview noncustodial; (2) disclosure of TJ11’s identifying information, finding her silence constituted an objection; and (3) subpoenaing TJ11 to testify about alleged juror misconduct, finding the proffered evidence inadmissible double hearsay and insufficient to show a strong possibility of prejudicial misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Russell’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the oral jury verdict was unanimous given TJ11’s initial “no” during polling | Polling and the court’s follow-up established each juror affirmed the announced verdicts; any confusion resolved in court | TJ11’s initial “no” showed the verdict lacked a unanimous oral declaration | Court accepted the trial judge’s credibility finding that TJ11 misunderstood the question and ultimately affirmed unanimity |
| Whether pre-Miranda statements must be suppressed (custody question) | Interrogation was noncustodial: handcuffs removed, defendant told he was not under arrest, free to leave, polite questioning, released after interview | Statements were taken while defendant was in custody (detained, interview at station, door likely locked) so Miranda warnings were required | Court held statements admissible: totality of circumstances showed no custody requiring Miranda |
| Whether the court erred by refusing to disclose TJ11’s identifying information under Code Civ. Proc. § 237 | Juror nonresponse can constitute a protest; court gave notice and multiple contact attempts; silence showed unwillingness to be contacted | Nonresponse does not equal objection; absence of an explicit protest requires disclosure for defense investigation | Court exercised discretion: found sufficient notice and follow-ups and reasonably concluded TJ11’s silence amounted to an objection, so disclosure denied |
| Whether court should have subpoenaed TJ11 to testify about alleged juror misconduct | No admissible evidence of misconduct; defense proffer was double hearsay and inadmissible under Evidence Code § 1150; two jurors denied misconduct | Defense counsel’s hallway declaration (reporting TJ11’s account) warranted subpoena to investigate possible prejudicial misconduct | Court refused subpoena: insufficient admissible evidence showing a strong possibility of prejudicial misconduct; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Traugott, 184 Cal.App.4th 492 (Cal. Ct. App.) (oral jury declaration and unanimity principles)
- Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 (U.S. 1977) (suspect’s voluntary station-house interview not automatically custodial)
- People v. Boyer, 48 Cal.3d 247 (Cal. 1989) (totality of circumstances test for custodial interrogation)
- People v. Hayes, 21 Cal.4th 1211 (Cal. 1999) (court may subpoena jurors when credible evidence shows need to resolve disputed facts of juror misconduct)
- People v. Hedgecock, 51 Cal.3d 395 (Cal. 1990) (hearing into juror misconduct only when defense shows strong possibility of prejudicial misconduct)
- Townsel v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.4th 1084 (Cal. 1999) (jurors may decline posttrial contact; disclosure statutes balance juror privacy and defendant’s investigative need)